Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
we're going to get these defense cuts and deficit hawks, conservatives, tea partiers are putting moderate republicans in a bind saying this is cutting our deficit. let's go for it. >> the grand irony, of course, is the fact that the number -- if you poll people their number one issue is jobs, right? it continues to be jobs. and $120 billion austerity crunch, the numbers being bantered around, in exchange for the sequester, which is like $85 billion. whatever it is, right, that's a big chunk. that will have an effect, negative jobs effect, no question. >> it is going to have an effect, i agree with you, chris. here is what i think. i think it is a risk. there will probably be a small recession. we had a .1 decrease in gdp last time. this deficit is a real problem. this is where i depart from paul. who am i to depart from paul? a nobel laureate. >> we'll ask him. >> this is about the best deal we'll get out of the right-winged crazy people in the house. >> because it's balanced and -- >> it doesn't really touch -- there's no better deal progressives are going to get out of this oth
'll be following this. >>> to washington now. members of congress remain focused on deficits, spending and how to head off the looming sequestration cuts poised to kick in early next month. in separate interviews on sunday, house minority leader nancy pelosi and majority leader eric cantor laid out the economic dividing lines. >> what we need is growth. we need growth with jobs. and if you have spending cuts, education of our children and other investments like the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth, you're not going to reduce the deficit. so it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. we have a budget deficit problem that we have to address. we think the deficit and the national debt are at immoral levels. we think they must be reduced. we're sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt. and that's 15% -- that's a large percentage of the budget. >> the tax fight for the president means higher taxes, more revenue. again, we can't be raising taxes every three months in this town, david. and you know, the bottom line is we want tax reform,
, yes, deficits and taxes and sequesters and potential government shutdowns and debt ceilings. we'll talk about that stuff. all from the perspective of how are we making sure that somebody who works hard in this country, a cop or a teacher, or a construction worker or a receptionist, that they can make it if they work hard. and that their kids can make it. and dream even bigger dreams than they have achieved. and obviously, a lot of what we'll be working on michellely over the next few weeks is going to be on how do we deal with the sequester issue, and i just want to make this quick point. i had a press conference this week in which i reiterated i am prepared, eager, and anxious to do a big deal, a big package that ends this governance by crisis for every two weeks or every two months or every six months. we are threatening this hard won recovery where finally housing is starting to pick up and commercial real estate is starting to do better and the unemployment numbers are still too high, but we're seeing some job growth and businesses are investing and manufacturing is doing we
such as the deficit, guns, or health care. the white house has certainly gotten the message on jobs and isn't waiting until tomorrow night to start getting its message out before the inevitable republican attacks start raining down. take a listen. >> you will hear in the president's state of the union an outline from him for his plan to create jobs and grow the middle class. the middle class is the engine that drives this country forward and which will, if it is given the right tools and the right opportunities, will drive us forward in the 21st century. >> let's get to our guest, democratic strategist bob shrum, and karen finney. the president is expected to use the speech as a way to frame the debate over the so-called sequester which would mean $85 billion in cuts that republicans claim are entirely his fault. take a listen to this. >> you know, the president, he's the one who proposed the sequester in the first place. >> it's what president obama proposed in 2011. >> it is inevitable quite frankly. now these cuts are coming by law and it's law the president signed and advocated. >> okay, professo
away. right? >> right. >> but republicans got to the brink and caved on the deficit ceiling. they got to the brink and they caved on sequester the first round. now, sequester comes back and still with the budget. and and they are saying, no, no, no. they are saying again that we are never going to agree with this unless we get major, major spending cuts and social security and welfare but can we believe him anymore? i mean it looks to me at the same time like they will get to the brink again and realize, no, no, no. we can't do this. if we look at recent history, that would be the course. what's fascinating is the republicans see this as the major bargaining chip to get their desired spending cuts but if we remember from their campaign last fall we saw mitt romney and paul rind on trying to avert the sequester saying this would be a really bad thing, you know, especially for defense. now, we kind of see a reverse here john boehner has said that he does not support a delay which the president wants, which the president outlined last week. so t
. >> no. no. well the first of the year on the fiscal cliff. on the deficit. then they caved, once they came back. right? on the budget and extended things again. isn't it likely no matter their bluff, they are going to cave on the sequester as well? >> we will see what happens. on top republicans are set to unveil their package with sec wrestration and they are likely to introduce a plan to pay for a year's worth of sequester cuts, a year reduction in the federal work force through attrition, not people losing their jobs but that's what they are set to unveil. >> that's kelly ayott, the chair of the house armed services committee and reveal an alternate plan and say what president obama suggested is dead on arrival in the house, not going to make it through congress >> bill: but they will come up with their own plan? >> they will later this afternoon. >> juan aa summers reporter for politico pro the paid addition? >> we are behind the pay wall but i pop up on the main site to cause trouble. >> defense related issues chuck hagel's nomination sequester,
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)